ROMILA DUBEY,J - (1.) THIS revision petition is under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act against the order dated 9.3.2004 of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and order dated 20.8.2001 of Collector, Amritsar.
(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that after the death of Daljit Singh son of Jogindar Singh, resident of Chawinda Devi, Tehsil and District Amritsar on 3.1.1997, who had two wives Gurvindar Kaur present petitioner No. 1 and Narindar Kaur present respondent No. 1, mutation No. 1427 of Village Chawinda Devi was entered by the Patwari Halqa in favour of Respondent No. 1 Narindar Kaur on the basis of registered Will dated 20.11.1990 which was sanctioned by A.C.II, vide order dated 7.4.1997. Gurvindar Kaur the present petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector Amritsar which was also dismissed on 22.12.1997. Still aggrieved the present petitioner Gurvindar Kaur and others filed revision before the Commissioner, who vide his order dated 20.8.1999 set aside the order of lower revenue courts and remanded the case to S.D.M-cum- A.C.I, Amritsar for fresh decision. After remand the A.C.I, vide his order dated 26.9.2000 ignored the Will dated 20.11.1990 propounded by Narindar Kaur and sanctioned the mutation on the basis of natural succession in favour of the legal heirs i.e. Swindar Kaur (mother), Gurvindar Kaur (widow), Anupreet Kaur (daughter), Dilpreet Singh and Lovepreet Singh (sons). Respondent No. 1 and 2 i.e. Narindar Kaur and Lovepreet Singh filed appeal before the Collector, Amritsar inter alia pleading that Narindar Kaur is the legally wedded wife of the Daljit Singh and Daljit Singh during his life time with his love and affection had executed a legal and valid Will dated 20.12.1990 in favour of Narindar Kaur which was duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Amritsar and the Will has been wrongly ignored by the A.C.I. The Collector vide his order dated 20.8.2001 accepted the appeal set aside the order dated 26.9.2000 of A.C.I and sanctioned the mutation of inheritance of Daljit Singh in favour of Narindar Kaur on the basis of Will dated 20.12.1990. Aggrieved by this, the present petitioner Gurvindar Kaur filed an appeal before the Commissioner which was however dismissed on 9.10.2004. Hence the present revision petition. Counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 desired to decide the case on the basis of written arguments to be filed by them within a week. Accordingly orders were reserved. Today the case is fixed for announcement of orders. Sh. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate, counsel for the petitioners has filed written arguments wherein it is contended that Gurvindar Kaur is widow of Daljit Singh and the other petitioners are minor children of Daljit Singh. Daljit Singh had not got divorce from the petitioner No. 1 Gurvindar Kaur and thus the Will is fabricated one and could not have been relied upon. Daljit Singh was only 30 years and the Will was allegedly executed at the age of 23 years. Daljit Singh died in an accident and as such he never knew that his life is too short. A person of 23 years normally is not supposed to execute Will. The marriage of Narindar Kaur is alleged to be on 25.1.1990 and Will was allegedly executed on 2.11.1990. So within 10 months it is not expected that a person will execute a Will in favour of a stranger. It is contended that the A.C.I has rightly held that Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. No reference has been given in the Will qua the petitioners and the mother of deceased as to why they have ignored. It is also argued that the respondent is working as a clerk in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Nawashahar and got employment on priority basis on 18.6.1998 because of the death of her father Balbir Singh showing herself unmarried. It is contended that if the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances the Revenue Officers are bound to ignore the Will. Reliance has been placed upon 1977 PLJ Page 54 Jaswant Singh v. Amrik Kaur, 1997 CCD Page 22 Deepinder Singh Dhillan v. General Public, 1992(2) PLJ 65 Maghar Singh v. Bachan Singh, 1997(4) RCR(Civil) 659 : 1997(2) PLJ 368 Sukhminder Kaur v. Gurlabh Singh, 1997(4) RCR(Civil) 629 : 1997(1) PLJ 47 Harbans Kaur v. Wassan Singh etc. It is further averred that property in hands of Daljit Singh was ancestral property and as such Daljit Singh was not competent to execute the Will in respect of this property. The documents relied upon by the lower courts were prepared after the death of Daljit Singh on 31.1.1997. Voter list is for the year 2002 and Ration Card was prepared on 22.7.1997 showing respondents No. 1 as widow of Daljit Singh.
(3.) ON the other hand it is contended in the written arguments filed by Sh. J.S. Thind, Advocate, Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 2 that Daljit Singh was husband of Narinder Kaur and out of their wedlock one son Lovepreet Singh was born. Daljit Singh had already given half share of the property to the petitioner Gurvinder Kaur vide sale deed dated 19.7.1991. Further Narindar Kaur is Class-I legal heir of deceased and Daljit Singh executed a valid Will in her favour. It is also contended that the testator can execute a Will in favour of third person who has no relationship. It is contended that the Revenue Officers are to sanction the mutation on the basis of registered documents and genuineness of the Will is to be seen only by the civil court. Reliance has been placed upon 1995 PLJ Page 218 and also PLJ 1978 Page 270. Sh. Deepak Nayar, Advocate, counsel for respondent No. 3 was also directed to file written arguments within a week on 22.4.2008 when the orders were reserved in this case. However no written arguments have been filed by the counsel for the respondent No. 3.;